Fashion’s Water Impacts: The Largest Brands Are Doing the Least

This post was originally published on Good on You

On a planet where usable water is scarce, water management is of the utmost importance. The fashion industry is a major consumer and polluter of fresh water, but not all brands are doing their part to implement water reduction and management initiatives. And sadly, the largest brands are the ones doing the least. So, which are the worst fashion brands for water use and management?

Fashion’s water impacts: the industry is thirsty

The fashion industry is a massive consumer and polluter of our fresh water. As is the case for a lot of fashion sustainability data, getting accurate and updated information for the industry’s water consumption is challenging, but according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2017 report, A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future, the industry is said to use around 93 billion cubic metres of water per year—enough to meet the needs of 5 million people. Worryingly, this amount is expected to double by 2030.

Water is used throughout the garment production process, starting with growing the plants and raising the animals needed to make fabrics. For instance, the cotton needed to produce a single garment can require thousands of litres, as well as large quantities of pesticides and insecticides, which then wash into waterways and enter the ecosystems.

The fashion industry is said to use around 93 billion cubic metres of water per year—enough to meet the needs of 5 million people.

The manufacturing stage also contributes to fashion’s water footprint. Fabric dyeing and treatment are responsible for wastewater—which is often untreated—being pumped back into our water systems and contaminating them with toxins and heavy metals. And the groundbreaking documentary RIVERBLUE highlighted that each year, textile companies not only consume water but also discharge millions of gallons of chemicals into our waterways, causing both environmental damage and diseases. Denim, in particular, is very water intensive: it’s heavily dependent on cotton fibres, and it requires water-intensive dyeing and finishing processes, although the industry is working to pioneer a new dyeing method that reduce the amount of water required.

Sadly, garments keep polluting waters long after they’ve left the shelves. Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate, abbreviated to PET) is one of the world’s most common materials, and is made from the same polymer used to manufacture plastic bottles. So, when we wash our polyester clothes, thousands of plastic microfibres are passed into the waterways. These microfibres make their way to our oceans, where they threaten ecosystems and eventually end up in our food chain, too.

Water management isn’t just about the quantity of water used—there’s a real risk in geographical location, too. Thirsty crops are often located in water-stressed basins where the resource is in short supply, polluted, or required for vulnerable local communities. Being water-efficient is not enough—brands need to make sure their products aren’t made in water-stressed areas, either.

How Good On You rates brands for water

Good On You analyses brands on three key areas of concern to consumers: the environment, labour, and animals. Water is one of the elements we consider when looking at how a brand impacts the environment.

And as we mentioned, it is important not just to consider how much water is used in the supply, but also where the water is being used. Kristian Hardiman, Good On You’s head of ratings, explains: “Unlike climate change, where one tonne of CO2 has a similar impact wherever it is released in the world, the value of one megalitre varies.” Water impact is a complex issue that needs to be considered at the local level.

The Good On You approach for rating large brands’ water impact is to first map their traced suppliers to determine whether they are operating in water-stressed basins. Based on this, we’ll look at whether the brand engages with local stakeholders in that basin to assure strong water management and set targets and goals. Often, the actions with suppliers involve implementing water reduction initiatives and wastewater treatment and discharge.

Unlike climate change, where one tonne of CO2 has a similar impact wherever it is released in the world, the value of one megalitre varies.

Kristian Hardiman – Good On You’s Head of Ratings

Because smaller brands have less influence, we focus less on stakeholder engagement and more on whether the brands have water reduction and wastewater treatment initiatives. Often, smaller brands meet this by sourcing certified materials, which ensure lower consumption of water.

Certifications like Cradle to Cradle Platinum and Gold, Bluesign, GOTS, STeP by Oeko-Tex, and the Global Recycled Standard (GRS) often provide evidence that a brand is working towards reducing its water footprint. If a brand discloses information to the Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) Water questionnaire, we will incorporate that score into the rating.

The sad truth: most brands do very little for water

Over the years, we’ve analysed thousands of brands, and sadly, very few of them have implemented water reduction and wastewater management initiatives. This is partly because many brands are still unaware of how to manage water properly.

Digging into the data of brands we’ve rated, we found that a staggering 77% of large brands get zero points in our methodology for their water management and reduction initiatives—meaning they either share no information at all about water practices or have received a score of F by CDP Water. 84% of these large brands do not set any water targets or goals, meaning they don’t have any specific plans to reduce their water usage or improve their water management practices. And 94% of large brands do not track their water impact at a local level, which, as highlighted above, is crucial. Finally, 87% of these large brands do not measure their wastewater—another critical aspect of proper water management. The reality is clear: most large brands do very little for water, which is deeply problematic given the scarcity of this precious resource.

Another issue we’ve faced is brands’ lack of transparency regarding their environmental policies in general, which means we don’t know exactly how these brands impact our waterways. CIDER, SHEIN, Temu, and SKIMS are examples of such brands.

66% of the large brands we’ve rated share no information at all about their water initiatives.

Here, we’ve analysed all the brands in our database to find the worst water use offenders—the ones that don’t disclose any information about, receive a poor score from CDP Water, do not track and measure their water impact and use, don’t set water targets or goals, and don’t measure the wastewater they produce.

These brands are amongst the worst water use offenders

The post Fashion’s Water Impacts: The Largest Brands Are Doing the Least appeared first on Good On You.